Ford

Markets vs. Special Interests

by Ryan Young on October 12, 2009

in Bailout Watch, Deregulate to Stimulate, Economy, Environment, Global Warming, Healthcare, Insurance, Politics as Usual, Regulation, Stimulus to Nowhere

Detractors of capitalism decry that it caters to special interests. The opposite is actually true. Just look at what’s happened in the last year.

Most of Wall Street came to government asking for a bailout when the government-created housing bubble popped.

The Big Three automakers also went to Washington for largesse when their customers came to prefer Toyotas and Hondas.

Health insurance companies stand to make a killing if Obamacare passes.

T. Boone Pickens and Al Gore would make millions from environmental legislation.

Ludwig von Mises explained the reason for all of this corrupt behavior with a single sentence back in 1949: “It is precisely the fact that the market does not respect vested interests that makes the people concerned ask for government interference.”
-Human Action, 4th Edition, p. 337.

Hybrid Owners Aren’t As Smug As They’re Painted

by Iain Murray on July 13, 2009 · 10 comments

in Economy, Energy, Environment, Global Warming, Zeitgeist

Very interesting, but of course unscientific*, poll of hybrid vehicle owners over at HybridCarBlog.  It turns out that very few hybrid owners bought their hybrid because of global warming fears:

So far, there have been more than 28,000 responses to the poll and the results are a little surprising. 37 percent of respondents picked foreign oil dependency, 29 percent cool technology, 27 percent car pool lane access, but only 7 percent picked global warming.

Certainly, everyone I know in Northern Virginia who bought a hybrid did so because of the (no longer available) HOV lane access, but I am a little surprised and gratified to see that over 50 percent of hybrid purchasers made their decision based on personal rather than political considerations.

More importantly, however, as the post author notes, this suggests that car companies are missing a huge marketing bonanza by concentrating so heavily on save-the-planet considerations in their advertising campaigns.  If we really want to see hybrid technology develop and become more affordable, the auto makers need to wise up to this.  Of course, with the major American automakers (apart from Ford) now substantially owned by politicians and their allies, the chances of this happening are slight.

*So take it with a grain of salt

Detroit, D.C.

by Ivan Osorio on April 30, 2009

in Bailout Watch, Economy, Labor

Today’s Wall Street Journal further drives home the difficult position in which the United Auto Workers, Chrysler, and General Motors are likely to find themselves as a result of the UAW becoming part owner of GM and majority shareholder of Chrysler. First, the lead editorial notes the political risks inherent in the arrangement:

Some Treasury officials have told the media that 50% government ownership is important to ensure that taxpayers get repaid for the $16.2 billion in Treasury loans. But this is false logic. Taxpayer-shareholders are likely to be far better off with a smaller stake in a truly private company that is better insulated from political meddling. Private owners are more likely than the Treasury or the unions to try to run the company for profit, and so increase its equity value over time. Treasury says it would be a hands-off owner, but that hardly seems plausible and in any case that would merely leave the UAW in control. At the next labor contract bargaining session, the union would sit on both sides of the table.

And former Journal Detroit correspondent Paul Ingrassia points out the conflicting incentives that the UAW will have to control after it assumes such a huge stake in the two troubled automakers (which Holman Jenkins also mentioned this week) — as well as the irony of it all.

Having burdened the Detroit companies for decades with restrictive work rules, enormous health-care obligations and generous retiree benefits, the United Auto Workers union will now end up controlling two of them. Specifically, the UAW will own 55% of Chrysler and 39% of General Motors, where only the government will have a larger ownership interest.

Assuming that negotiations over the next few days or weeks don’t change things, it’s hard to know whether this outcome is perversity or poetic justice. The UAW finally will end up having a direct stake in the survival and prosperity of General Motors and Chrysler — even though the union’s shares in the companies will be held by special trust funds instead of by the UAW itself.

Whether the union’s rank and file will recognize its interest in the companies and act accordingly is another matter. Consider that one of the terms of Chrysler’s pending deal with the union is that workers won’t receive overtime pay until they work more than 40 hours in any given week.

One might well ask: Wasn’t it always that way? Well, no. Often enough, the union negotiated production quotas in local plant contracts that workers could fill in five or six hours a day — after which any work they did qualified for overtime pay. Now you understand one key reason why Detroit has arrived at this unhappy juncture.

That two of the major protagonists in this sorry history — the UAW and the federal government — are gaining more power over GM and Chrysler gives little reason for optimism about the companies’ future. More political manipulation is the last thing troubled companies need, and the  new  ownership structures now being finalized for GM and Chrysler are unlikely to avoid it. By seeking private financing, Ford may be about to dodge a bullet.

A loophole wide enough to drive a GMC truck though

by Ivan Osorio on December 19, 2008 · 4 comments

in Bailout Watch, Economy, Politics as Usual

The Bush administration’s outline of its automaker bailout package lists some seemingly sensible changes in labor practices that GM and Chrysler need to make. (Ford, to its credit, is seeking private financing instead.)

Targets: The terms and conditions established by Treasury will include additional targets that were the subject of Congressional negotiations but did not come to a vote, including:

  • Reduce debts by 2/3 via a debt for equity exchange.
  • Make one-half of VEBA payments in the form of stock.
  • Eliminate the jobs bank.
  • Work rules that are competitive with transplant auto manufacturers by 12/31/09.
  • Wages that are competitive with those of transplant auto manufacturers by 12/31/09.

But…

These terms and conditions would be non-binding in the sense that negotiations can deviate from the quantitative targets above, providing that the firm reports the reasons for these deviations and makes the business case to achieve long-term viability in spite of the deviations.

Conditions with a loophole wide enough to drive a GMC truck through are hardly the stuff of which corporate transformations are made. To be fair, the Bush administration has recognized the biggest labor-related problems affecting these companies, so it is particularly unfortunate that it is being this timid.

The requirement to pay contributions to VEBAs (voluntary employee benefit associations) draws welcome attention to a looming problem. VEBAs are intended to serve as health care trusts that allow companies to pass their health insurance obligations on to another party, in this case a union. It makes sense for a company to want to shed those costs, and GM has already passed $35 million on to the United Auto Workers.

But, as Brian Johnson and Ryan Ellis of Americans for Tax Reform point out:

[T]he United Auto Workers has been given a free hand to define “health care” under the Treasury regulations—not coincidentally written by IRS officials of Presidents Lyndon Johnson and Jimmy Carter—which implement VEBAs.

Payments in the form of stock would at least help make VEBAs less liquid and thus prone to abuse — but even then, the requirement is only for half of payments, and is only a non-binding target for use of taxpayer money.

Finally, handing a large union a large wad of cash requires holding the union to a high standard of accountability, something for which President-elect Obama’s pick for Labor Secretary doesn’t provide confidence.

The UAW’s Three-Year Emergency Response

by Ivan Osorio on December 12, 2008

in Bailout Watch, Economy, Politics as Usual

Last night, the Detroit Big Three bailout package crashed and burned for the best of reasons. To their credit, Senate Republicans refused to abide the United Auto Workers’ cavalier attitude toward further, drastic concessions. Reports The New York Times:

Late Thursday, the Senate did not take up an assistance measure passed by the House, after hours of negotiations between Senate Republicans with the auto companies and the U.A.W. The sticking point apparently was the union’s refusal to agree to lower wage and benefit rates as soon as next year.

Representatives for the union, which had already accepted a series of cuts in its current contract, sought instead to push any more concessions back to 2011, when the U.A.W.’s contract with Detroit auto companies expires.

And the UAW’s stated reason for wanting to take so long? The union put out a statement:

“Unfortunately, Senate Republicans insisted that this had to be accomplished by an arbitrary deadline. This arbitrary requirement was not imposed on any other stakeholder groups. Thus, the U.A.W. believed this was a blatant attempt to make workers shoulder the lion’s share of the costs of any restructuring plan,” the statement said.

Isn’t it inconvenient how an emergency can impose an “arbitrary deadline”? The UAW’s argument of “Make them do more!” cannot obscure the fact that the union itself still needs to make further concessions, no matter what.

If the Detroit auto makers’ situation were truly as dire as they and the union claim, they’d be renegotiating contracts now.

Federally Sanctioned Propaganda Machine

by Gary Howard on December 11, 2008 · 1 comment

in Bailout Watch, Economy, Intellectual Property, Nanny State, Odds & Ends, Privacy, Regulation, Tech & Telecom

 

Apple's 1984 "Big Brother" commercial.

Apple's 1984 "Big Brother" ad

An article over at Ad Age brings up an angle on the whole auto industry bailout probably not considered much before.  The fact that a yet-to-be-appointed “car czar” will have control over a multibillion dollar advertising budget for the big three.  Under the guise of “oversight,” this would effectively “Create World’s Most Powerful Marketing Exec[utive].”  

The draft rescue plan for Detroit sent to the White House by Congress yesterday calls for the appointment of a “car czar” who will oversee the Big Three automakers’ expenses over $25 million — which, by extension, would include media buys. Based on Advertising Age’s estimates of spending by General Motors Corp., Chrysler and Ford Motor Co., that would give the as-yet-unnamed car czar control over some $7.3 billion in marketing spending in the U.S. alone.

The most disturbing thoughts about this (particularly to those concerned with liberty) are provoked here: 

The car czar would wield a budget more than double those of AT&T, Verizon, Unilever and Johnson & Johnson, which round out the nation’s top five marketing spenders, and give the car czar more clout with media and agencies than such famed names in marketing as Walmart Chief Marketing Officer Stephen Quinn and Anheuser-Busch VP-Marketing Dave Peacock.

…If the bailout goes through, agencies that work for the Big Three will essentially be toiling on a government account, with all the associated red tape and strictures that involves.

So there you have it.  We should all be concerned about this for many reasons.  As mentioned, the large ad budget that comes with a czar-controlled U.S. auto industry will allow a government bureaucrat to wield unbalanced and unchecked influence over not only who gets ad contracts, but what media outlets get ad money. The czar can simply refuse to give business to an advertising agency who works for a foreign competitor of the big three (or a “non-compliant” corporation), or refuse to pay money to show ads on outlets that they deem “unfriendly” to the administration or its mission.   This will be an unequivocal disaster.  We have already seen the lengths to which administrations (and pre-administrations) have gone to influence and/or silence media they do not like.  What kind of power plays do you think are possible when the administration’s appointee controls a major source of media outlets’ ad revenue? Whatever it ends up being, it won’t be pretty.

DeLorean disproves domsayers in debate over auto bankruptcies

by John Berlau on November 28, 2008 · 8 comments

in Bailout Watch, Economy, Intellectual Property, Mobility, Politics as Usual

In the debate about bailing out the Big 3 automakers, it is said that we just can’t allow a bankruptcy. Despite the fact that Chapter 11 bankruptcies have taken place for retailers such as Circuit City and many airlines such as U.S. Airways, autos are said to be different because of the duration of time that people hold on to their cars for.

Horrific senarios are painted of consumers not being able to get parts for their automobiles if manufacturers are no longer in existence. But of all the many admittedly complicated aspects of a bankruptcy of General Motors (the company the Congressional hearings established was in the most trouble), these consumer issues provide the least reason for worry.

In a Chapter 11 bankruptcy, GM would most likely be reorganized into a new company, sans the current management and heavy costs. This is something that has proved impossible so far due to lax management, generous union contracts, and state dealer franchise laws that make car companies pay an arm and a leg to sever a relationship with a car dealer. A bankruptcy could finally force the tackling of these tough issues.

But even if no reorganized company emerges, the production of parts for consumers with existing GM models will almost certainly continue. All that would need to occur is the relatively simple process of the bankruptcy court transferring the GM’s intellectual property rights to a company that wants to manufacture its parts. To see how this would work, it is instructive to look at thriving reproduction parts industry for a car that hasn’t been made since the ’80s: the DeLorean.

The DeLorean Motor Company operated from the mid-’70s to the early ’80s. The company filed for bankruptcy protection in 1982 and the company went into liquidation instead of reorganization, and no new DeLoreans have been made since.

But there is still an active interest in the cars, and the sporty DeLorean DMC-12 was immortalized in the 1985 movie “Back to the Future” and its sequels. According to Wikipedia, “A very large number of the original cars are still on the road after over 25 years; most estimates put it at 6,500 cars surviving out of just over 9,000 built.”

So what happens when these cars need a new part, with the company that makes the cars no longer in business. Well, their drivers can get original and reproduction parts from the new DeLorean Motor Company. This is a new firm with entirely different owneship that acquired the trademark to the original company’s name as well as the rights to its designs.

According to the new DeLorean Motors’ web site, “when the supply of any part is exhausted or becomes no longer available, we endeavor to have the parts remanufactured using our set of the original engineering drawings.” They even sell “new build” DeLoreans using a combination of original and reproduction parts.

Going back even further, one can even buy new reproduction parts for a Studebaker, a car last made in the ’60s. An Indiana company called Studebaker International Inc. performs, according to its web site, “drilling, machining and assembly of parts” for nearly all models of Studebaker.

Of course a lot more people have GM cars than DeLoreans or Studebakers, but this fact cuts in favor of GM consumers. If there can be a thriving business in parts for cars that exist in this limited amount, entrepreneurs will rush to fill the needs of the owners of millions of GM cars on the road.

Resolving warranties is slightly more complicated, but a bankruptcy court would likely award warranty service contracts priority among the debts to be paid. And most warranties are backed by insurance companies, anyway, in the case of a firm’s bankruptcy. More on this in another post.

Were Lada factories this bad?

by Ivan Osorio on November 14, 2008 · 2 comments

in Bailout Watch, Economy

As the Senate prepares to debate the proposed $25 billion bailout bill for the Big Three Detroit automakers, it’s worth pointing out — as many times as possible — just what this money might be going to pay for. First, as Larry Kudlow, points out, there are uncompetitive salaries.

Here’s a stat from my friend, blogger Mark Perry: Total compensation per hour for the big-three carmakers is $73.20. That’s a 52 percent differential from Toyota’s (Detroit South) $48 compensation (wages + health and retirement benefits). In fact, the oversized UAW-driven pay package for Detroit is 132 percent higher than that of the entire manufacturing sector of the U.S., which comes in at $31.59.

Yet that’s not all. As The Wall Street Journal‘s Paul Ingrassia notes, Detroit doesn’t need more money, but radical change, including getting rid of union contracts, which, as he noted on NPR this week, include burdensome work rules. Here’s one example he cites in his Journal op ed:

A few years ago the UAW even waged a spirited fight to protect the “right” of workers to smoke on the assembly line, something that simply isn’t allowed at, say, Honda’s U.S. factories. Aside from the obvious health risk, what about cigarette ashes falling onto those fine leather seats being bolted into the cars? Why was this even an issue?

In what other industry would this even be tolerated?

Yet even that is not all — then there is the UAW “Jobs Bank,” which keeps allegedly laid-off auto workers on at full salary and not working. This is beyond Soviet. In the former Communist bloc, people had a saying: “We pretend to work and they pretend to pay us.” Not even pretending to work and getting paid for real beats that every time.

If Detroit deserves anything, it’s a Lada plant.